On Monday 14 April 2008 15:46:14 you wrote: > On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Matt Williams wrote: > > From the proposal at > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Water_cover it > > seems that natural=beach, surface=rocky (or surface=rock?) and optional > > water=tidal tag if you feel like it :) > > Excellent - that seems to be a good answer, thanks. Although I note that > the proposal doesn't mention whether it should also be tagged as > natural=beach (how do we actually define a beach? It's rather a vague > idea).
I know, it's a rather incomplete proposal but surface=rock seems a sensible way to tag it. Personally, I wouldn't actually call that rocky peninsular a beach so I agree on the fuzzyness. > I've also raised a question on the natural=coastline talk page about what > the coastline actually denotes - I can't see anything saying whether it is > the high water or low water line (I'd assume it's the low water line - > i.e. everything to the right of it is always sea, no matter what the state > of the tide, whilst stuff to the left of it is assumed to be land > (tagged as water=tidal if it is flooded at high tide). I'd agree with your assessment here. Otherwise, perhaps a natural=coastline with a tide=high or tide=low tag and then essentially have two coastline shapes for beach areas. Though perhaps this would be hellish for the renderers? Matt Williams
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
